I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-forces-ceha-08.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 20131028 IETF LC End Date: 20131106 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: - 1 pages 2 and 3: I have a concern with the order of definitions. IMHO there are 3 solutions: * keep the document order arguing definitions are repeated for convenience so it doesn't matter there are backward references (i.e., someone new in the domain should first read referenced RFCs, and at the opposite someone not new in the domain already knows the used acronyms) * introduce each acronym at its first use * same + reorder the definition list to minimize out-of-order internal references Note the best choice depends on the intended public so you have a better idea than me about this... - 2.2 second 1. page 5: IMHO the interface is Fp, not Fr. - 3.1 figure 2 page 7: Estbalishment -> Establishment - 3.1.1 page 7: parametrization -> parameterization - 4.1 page 11 (twice): i.e. -> i.e., - 4.1 2. page 11: the and in "+ and 2" should be moved to the end of the previous item, i.e., I suggest to change: + 1 (HA Mode - Cold Standby) represents that the FE is in HA mode cold Standby + and 2 (HA Mode - Hot Standby) represents that the FE is in HA mode hot Standby into + 1 (HA Mode - Cold Standby) represents that the FE is in HA mode cold Standby, and + 2 (HA Mode - Hot Standby) represents that the FE is in HA mode hot Standby Note if you want to put something at the end of each items the correct character is ";", and "." for the last item. - 4.2 page 13: practise -> practice - 4.2 pages 13 and 14: figure 4 should be on one page (this is something to leave to the RFC Editor anyway). - 4.2 figure 5 page 14 (3!): Estbalishment -> Establishment - Appendix A page 20: some indent problems with "The FE should stop | continue" (same remark: we can expect the RFC Editor will use a XML pretty-printer for the final editing). Regards Francis.Dupont at fdupont.fr PS: I am at the IETF meeting.